IANA policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to RIRs

The presenter explained the process for developing a globally coordinated policy, under the terms of the Global Policy Development Process defined in the ASO MoU. This proposal "IANA policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to RIRs", was first approved by the APNIC Policy SIG at APNIC 18. Since then, the proposal has been developed further during its presentation to the other RIRs. It is now being re-presented here to give the opportunity for review and discussion of the changes and confirm consensus of this forum.

The revised details are as follows:

allocations to be sufficient for an 18 month period

Those with less than /12 to receive an allocation from IANA

RIRs to receive additional addresses when available space is less than 50 percent of a /12, or available space is less than the RIR's requirement for the next nine months

IANA to make a single allocation sufficient to meet the RIR's need for an 18 month period.

The presenter reviewed the progress of discussions in the other RIRs and explained the expected next steps. The current draft of the proposal is [prop-005-v005].

Questions and discussion

The Chair asked for a show of hands on this revised proposal. There were no objections. The Chair noted consensus to accept this proposal, pending approval at the remaining stages of the process.

Action items

pol-20-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy development process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of this policy [prop-005-v004].

The presenter explained that this proposal is based on considerations of the desired lifetime for the IPv6 protocol. He described the impact of the current default assignment sizes in IPv6 policy, noting that the assignment efficiency is very low. The current combination of the HD-ratio of 0.8 and the default assignment sizes leads to some very large allocations, which can lead to very rapid usage of the available address pool.

The presenter also noted that problems of routing are not going to be solved easily. The presenter argued that in the long term, it is preferable to still have ample addresses in the pool at the end of the protocol?s lifetime, to ensure a smooth transition to whatever a new addressing protocol may be.

The presenter argued that in the current IPv6 policy framework, the lifetime of the address pool may not be sufficient to provide for future needs without policy changes. The presenter noted that there are many uncertainties in the future of devices and networks, making it impossible to predict the number of addresses that may be required. If the community is wrong in its assumptions and underestimates the future demand, then problems can occur. Therefore, it was argued that it is appropriate now to consider how the policy may be changed to avoid future pain.

The presenter noted that the current application of the HD-ratio creates inefficient addressing schemes. He argued that moving to a HD-ratio of 0.94 would create far more efficient addressing schemes, without creating undue expense or difficulties for LIRs. This analysis was made by considering the past 20 years of experience of IPv4 addressing. The presenter argued that this change would make no difference to most networks, but would require greater efficiency from a small minority of networks.

The presenter then reviewed the current default assignment sizes and how they were first set. He noted that many of the initial motivations for setting these defaults may no longer be compelling in the light of operational experience and other technical changes. However, he noted that moving to full variable length sub-netting, while allowing very high levels of efficiency, would come at significant cost. Therefore, he suggested that a satisfactory, pragmatic trade-off would be to add a /56 assignment point, which would be the default for SOHO end sites.

The presenter noted that RFC 3177 explained that problems in the initial addressing structure could be fixed easily by future policy changes, as the initial release of addresses from the pool was relatively small. However, he argued that this attititude could lead to a repeat of the mistakes of IPv4, which created early adopter rewards and late adopter penalties. By instead assuming the success of IPv6, it is better to seek to develop a uniform address policy across the desired life of the protocol.

The presenter explained that it is intended to seek to achieve global coordination of this proposal.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that the HD-ratio has been under discussion in the ARIN region for some time now and that the /56 recommendation has also been tabled for discussion.

It was suggested that this proposal is very good, but should have been made one year ago. It was argued that it could cause significant problems for operators who have already begun assigning IPv6 and deploying systems based upon the previous addressing scheme. It was suggested that APNIC should conduct a study on the impact to existing address holders.

The presenter noted that the proposal is not intended to affect assignments already made.

It was noted that this proposal highlights the past mistakes of classful addressing schemes in IPv4. It was argued that it is preferable to allocate prefix sizes on the basis of need.

There was another comment that assignment on the basis of need is a more appropriate model.

The presenter noted that these questions go back to a decade-long discussion of the protocol developers that sought to balance conservation with complexity and cost. This proposal is intended to impose a minimal change to the existing structure, which would still achieve a significant saving in address space.

There was a argument that there is a compelling need to revisit those earlier discussions.

It was noted that the JP community understands the logic of this proposal, but feels that these issues were anticipated in the initial policy framework. There is a concern of risk of disruption to the existing customers, even though there appears to be at least 60 years of space. The presenter argued that the current deployment is miniscule compared to the potential deployment. Deferring the problem is likely to create a much larger disruption.

It was argued that not making some changes now would be to ignore the lessons of history.

The presenter argued that planning for the success of the protocol requires a conservative approach to all of the uncertainties.

There was a statement noting support for the HD-ratio component of the proposal but objection to the introduction of the /56. It was suggested to instead amend the /64 assignment to a /60 or /56. It was suggested that a default of 256 subnets may seem more than enough today, but research suggests it may not be sufficient in the future. It was argued that for a home user to move to a /48 in the future must be possible at no cost.

It was suggested that networks may not be using IP at all in 60 or 100 years.

Again, it was clarified that this policy is not intended to affect current holders.

It was argued that making changes such as this now affects the market perception of stability of IPv6.

There was a comment that there are already many customers that must be considered.

It was argued that if we are wrong about the /48 and we wait 30 years, then the pain caused then will be vastly greater than the pain that would be inflicted on existing customers now. The presenter urged a consideration of the long-term good of the technology versus the short term interests of customers now.

Under this proposal the existing customers will be able to continue with /48 assignments. However, the policy does not specify what the impact should be on the way existing IPv6 holders make future assignments.

There was a question about the existing APNIC policy for /32 allocations on critical infrastructure.

It was argued that it is not advisable to include operational guidance in the proposal. It was also suggested that the proposal should be worded to that it is a measurement of usage not recommended ways of deploying technology.

There was a general question about subnetting and address portability.

It was noted that the /48 assignment from RFC 3177 would, in the future, apply to a very broad range of different devices. It was also suggested that in the future, people may have multiple ISP connections within their houses, each requiring /48 subnets. It was noted that it is easy to imagine automatic, low cost assignment methods of /56 subnets. It was also noted that many people speak easily about future transition to a new protocol, but this task is likely to be extremely complicated and difficult.

It was noted that discussions in the LACNIC region are proceeding in a similar direction.

By request, the proposal was split into two parts.

It was explained that the change to the HD-ratio could bring about a 90 percent change to total consumption.

The Chair called for a show of hands on the first part of the proposal, namely raising the HD-ratio for evaluation of subsequent allocations to 0.94. The Chair noted that there was consensus to accept this recommendation.

The Chair called for a show of hands on the second part of the proposal, namely creating a /56 default assignment point and basing the HD-ratio calculations on the /56 unit. The Chair noted that there was no consensus to adopt this recommendation.

Action items

pol-20-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of the HD-ratio component of this policy [prop-031-v001].

Alternative address allocation algorithm for IPv6

This presentation describes an analytical model to quantify the effects of IPv6 address allocation schemes, with a proposal of an alternative allocation scheme with improved aggregation and assignment efficiency.

The presenter described current routing table growth and noted that this motivated the work being presented here. Allocation policy plays a very important role in routing. The presenter noted that since IPv6 is just starting, it is necessary to learn the lessons of IPv4. This work focuses only on the technical aspects of IPv6 addressing.

The presenter described the foundations of the analysis. A straight line can be used to describe an address space, with customer allocation blocks represented as segments on that line. To maintain aggregation, an address block must double in size in order to use the same prefix, without either fragmentation or renumbering. The presenter described the existing allocation algorithm, which is good for providing growth, but treats all customers equally in terms of potential growth.

The proposed new algorithm considers more factors to determine how to select an address block for new customers, in a way which provides for appropriate growth but avoids collisions. The presenter described the basis for the simulations that were performed to test the algorithm. The presenter noted that the simulations matched well with the theoretical analysis.

The presenter noted that even if estimations of growth rates are wrong, the algorithm provides considerable room for adjustments. It is also possible to re-evaluate assumptions when new customers enter. However, there will remain problems if a new, fast-growing customer enters an allocation scheme at a late stage.

Resource recovery policy implementation update

The presenter provided a background to the project to commence recovering unused historical resources. This project relates to historical resources unrouted since 1998 and not used in private networks. The Secretariat compiles a list of affected address ranges, checks the usage of the addresses in those ranges, and seeks to contact the address holders. This process is conducted on a two-month cycle.

The presenter provided statistics of the project so far, details of which are available in the presentation.

Proposal for discrete networks and national peering

The presenter noted that this proposal [prop-029-002] is similar to one presented by MCI at APNIC 17. This proposal is to permit large ISPs to manage multiple country accounts under a single APNIC membership using the concept of multiple discrete networks. Unde this proposal there could be country-based network accounts and service-based network accounts.

The presenter noted that this proposal would not effect the current operation of the HD-ratio, which would apply at the country or service network level. The presenter described the global nature of the large ISP networks and how peering is done.

Currently, some large ISPs have multiple accounts, causing problems for managing multiple billing cycles. The presenter also explained that this proposal would provide great advantages in international and regional peering arrangements. He also noted that in some countries the operation of Network Access Points also affects the peering arrangements.

The presenter explained that this proposal is not intended to affect general address policies, but is instead intended to provide more efficient administration of APNIC accounts.

The presenter explained the proposed criteria for qualification under this proposal, which are detailed in the presentation.

Questions and discussion

There was a comment about the potential impact on fee revenues from this proposal. It was noted that this issue has not been fully addressed in this presentation. The presenter noted that MCI had previously had the option to merge into one account, however, their decision was based more on the implications that would have on how they could administer their resources. The offer to merge accounts does come with a requirement to operate a single address pool. The presenter noted that if the technical aspects of this proposal could be adopted, then the fee aspects could be considered separately and there would be no objection from the proponent in paying an fee equivalent to what they pay now.

It was argued that the same technical ends could be achieved by applying the HD-ratio to multinational address pools.

The presenter explained that there are benefits in applying the HD-ratio on a country basis, due to differences in network growth in different countries.

However, it was argued that the HD-ratio is actually matched to situations such as that described, applying a common metric to measure utilisation efficiency across many diverse networks.

It was noted that there has been a previous decision to stop accepting confederation memberships because of problems caused by the model in the past.

It was argued again that the HD-ratio would be a better way of achieving efficient utilisation than allowing multinational providers setting minimum allocations across geo-political boundaries.

There was a suggestion of separating this proposal into IPv4 and IPv6 components.

The Co-chair called for a show of hands on the IPv4 component of this proposal. The Co-chair noted that there was no clear consensus position on this proposal.

The Co-chair then called for a show of hands on the IPv6 component of this proposal. Again the Co-chair noted that there was no clear consensus position on this proposal.

The Co-chair suggested that proponent should consider amending and re-presenting the proposal to take account of the questions from the community.

Action items

None.

RIR policy development update

This was an informational proposal to share with the community what has been under discussion in the various RIR communities. The presenter described the policy development process in APNIC and gave an update of the status of the current active proposals in the APNIC forum.

Full details of the status of proposals and discussions in the AfriNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE regions are available in the presentation, which has been published on the APNIC web site.

The presenter noted that the common topics include the global policy on IANA IPv6 allocations and IPv6 assignment management. The ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE regions are all discussing an edit of policy documents to take account of AfriNIC's emergence. The APNIC and RIPE regions are both discussing the application of the HD-ratio to IPv4.

Questions and discussion

There was a request for more detail of the discussions in other regions about the IPv6 assignment management proposals.

It was noted that in the ARIN region, it is likely that the HD-ratio proposal will receive consensus but it is too early to predict what will happen with the assignment size points.

In the RIPE region, the discussions are ongoing, relating to the 200 customer requirement and the /48 assignment points. There is to be a revised proposal submitted.

ARIN is also discussing issues relating to end sites.

Discussions in the LACNIC region are currently still at an informal level.

LIR survey results

The presenter explained that at APNIC 18, the Secretariat was tasked to conduct a survey on LIR address management practices in order to inform discussions of the use of HD-ratio in IPv4 networks. This presentation was a report of the results of this survey.

This was a qualitative survey, conducted with the assistance of NIRs and the APNIC training team. There were 67 respondents, six of which have already deployed IPv6. Twenty-seven of the respondents reported encountering problems with the current 80 percent utilisation rate. The presenter provided a detailed breakdown of the responses to the survey, which are included in the presentation published on the APNIC web site.

The conclusions drawn from the survey are that 40 percent of the respondents reported problems reaching 80 percent utilisation, but there was no correlation between the problems and the network size or complexity, the number of services, and the levels of hierarchy.

The presenter requested feedback from the community about the next steps for this survey.

Questions and discussion

The Co-chair asked for feedback on the following questions:

Should the sample size be widened?

Should the proposal cease?

Should discussions of this proposal be continued on the list?

Should APNIC wait and see what happens in the RIRs?

The presenter noted that he would refer the survey back to the mailing list for further discussion.

Action items

pol-20-003: APNIC Secretariat to refer further discussion of the LIR survey to the mailing list.

IP address space transfer between existing Taiwan LIRs

In the past year, TWNIC has received requests from several LIRs for transfers of address space between LIRs. TWNIC is concerned to ensure appropriate procedures for managing these transfers.

The presenter described the TWNIC procedures, and presented the details of the TWNIC IP address transfer application form. Full details of the transfer criteria are available in the presentation which is published on the APNIC web site.

The presenter sought comments from the community on their proposed procedure.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that it was not clear whether the address transfers are linked to the transfer of the network infrastructure. It was explained that this was linked to the transfer of services to another LIR.

Large IPv4 address space usage trial for Future IPv6

This presentation was part of the series of regular reports given to the Policy SIG about the large scale address usage trial in Japan.

The presenter noted that there is a new participant in the trial, running WiMax technology.

The presenter noted that many of the trial participants are very positive about providing IPv6 services, but that it is difficult to deploy IPv6 completely and hard to return IPv4 addresses. Most services still require IPv4.

The extension of the trial was welcomed by the participants. Many have indicated they wish to continue participating in the trial.

The second phase of the trial was endorsed at APNIC 19. The presenter provided an overview of the plans for the second phase of this trial. Participants will be asked to set trial targets for return of IPv4 space. However, there may be future discussions about adjusting the requirement to return IPv4 space.

The second phase is due to start in January 2006.

Questions and discussion

It was noted that JPNIC is interested in the progress of this trial and wishes to maintain a relationship with the organisers.

It was suggested that in phase two, the space should go back to original procedures.

It was noted that there appears to be great uncertainty about the actual return of the IPv4 space. It was suggested that participants who are dual stacking should be required to justify their IPv4 address requirements like any other provider.

It was suggested that the registration of the block should be transferred to APNIC and it should be verified that the usage complies with APNIC policies.

Election of Co-chair

Nominations for the position of Co-chair of this SIG were received from:

Ahmad Alkazimy APJII

Billy Cheon (KRNIC of NIDA)

Tom Vest (PCH)

Xiangjian (Eugene) Li (CNNIC)

Each of the candidates, except Tom Vest, briefly addressed the SIG. The Co-chair called for a show of hands for each candidate in turn. The Co-chair announced that Xiangjian (Eugene) Li was the successful candidate.

Questions and discussion

None.

Action items

None.

Meeting closed: 12:40 pm

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

Open action items

pol-20-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy development process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of this policy.

pol-20-002: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy development process, Secretariat to continue coordinating global acceptance of the HD-ratio component of this policy [prop-031-v001].

pol-20-003: APNIC Secretariat to refer further discussion of the LIR survey to the mailing list.